Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Los Angeles, CA- USCIS Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) seeks experienced attorney for Associate Regional Counsel position, USCIS OCC, Western Region. Responsibilities include, but not limited to, serving as attorney providing on-site legal advice to local District Office USCIS personnel on issues involving immigration related adjudications, inadmissibility and
deportability grounds, and national security. Applicants must possess JD degree, be active bar member (any jurisdiction), and have 2+ years of post-JD experience in immigration law. For more info, key in Job Announcement Number: COU-CIS-2009-0002 at USAJobs.com. Preference is given to applicants with immigration law experience,
a background in federal litigation, an excellent academic record, and strong
writing skills. Submit a resume, cover letter + writing sample (max. 10 pps.) to: Kelli J. Duehning, Western Regional Counsel, USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel at Kelli.Duehning@dhs.gov. Must be received by close of business, Tuesday, February 10, 2009. Position is at the GS-13/14/15 levels and is open until filled. No relocation reimbursement available.

Translation Services
Eurasia Translations, Inc. has been proud to serve immigration attorneys and individuals since 1993 with the translation of personal documents, academic credentials, criminal clearance letters, etc. Our customers can rest assured that all of our translations are prepared in accordance with USCIS requirements and are accompanied by a notarized certificate of accuracy. For more information, please call 888-887-1884 or visit our website. For a free quote, please complete http://eurasia-usa.com/turntime_rate/turntime_form.html or fax your document at 818-907-9763.

Pecos Immigration Prison Riot Ends
The weekend uprising was the second time inmates have staged violent protests at the prison in a period of less than two months. Managed by the Florida-based Geo Group, the Pecos facility is among many immigrant detention centers in the United States currently run by private companies.

Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: editor@ilw.com. Readers interested in learning about featuring your event or conference in Immigration Daily, see here. To feature your newsletter in Immigration Daily, see here.

Immigration Event - New York, NY
"National Concern, Local Action, Immigrant Integration in New York,” a half-day conference presented by The Colin Powell Center for Public Policy at The City College of New York with generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. General Powell will deliver the keynote address at the conference's concluding luncheon. 8:30–1:30 pm Thursday, February 5, The Great Hall of Shepard Hall, The City College of New York, 160 Convent Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10031. RSVP: Ellis Simon, Director of Public Relations, The City College of New York, 212-650-6450. esimon@ccny.cuny.edu.

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: editor@ilw.com (300-words or fewer preferred). Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence, available in our archives.

Dear Editor:
In his letter of February 3, Jim Roberts makes a good point poorly, and it is off of the immigration topic besides. I agree with Jim Robert's argument about the Second Amendment, not about our President's citizenship or legal competence to serve. My whingeing at Mr. Algase (or just his joy at vanquishing his political nemeses) may have contributed to his drawing back from using terms like "un-American" and other vituperative argument enders, or it may not, but I used to regularly whinge at his letters about avoiding such language. Same goes for Mr. Roberts's letters. Your letter's argument is undermined by your resort to the term. Similarly, when one resorts to adjectives like "blatant", one generally weakens ones statement. I agree that in a self-governing nation, law is what the drafters of any valid law said and what it meant at the time they said it, an approach quite at odds with Mr. Algase's letter's kritarchy. (After all, why else vote - to choose who chooses our real masters, the judges?) One can say it better, even disagreeably, without resorting to "argument enders" like that creepy little term reincarnated by the Kerrys and Mr. Soros, "un-American". Those may fire up some who agree with you, but turn off more waverers than they convince.

Honza Prchal, Esq.
Birmingham, AL

Dear Editor:
Jim Roberts' letter (02/03/09 ID) criticizes anyone who shows "disrespect" for the
Constitution. Judging from his letter, that seems to mean anyone who
has a different interpretation from the ones in his letters. The
Constitution is what the courts, especially, the Supreme Court, say
that it means. In my opinion, for example, nothing could be more
reprehensible than to distort what may have admittedly been considered
an essential component of freedom centuries ago into an excuse for the
gun lobby to make unseemly profits by disseminating weapons that
destroy thousands of innocent human lives today. But Justice Scalia's
recent 2nd Amendment opinion, which I believe does exactly that, is
the law of the land, unless and until overturned some day in the
future by a more enlightened Court. With regard to the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the 14th amendment in a way which makes virtually
every baby born in this country a US citizen, perhaps if the Court
majority had had access to Mr. Roberts' letters 110 years ago, it
would have been persuaded to decide differently. But that did not
happen, and anyone who claims to respect the Constitution has to
acknowledge that the liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment
citizenship clause that Mr. Roberts' letters find so obnoxious is just
as much the law of the land as the opinion by Justice Scalia in favor
of the gun lobby that my letters object to.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
Jim Roberts' letter (02/03/09 ID) ends with, "True Americans will not tolerate a disrespect or abuse of our Constitution as do special interests, power-mongers and Globalists." I'm afraid this statement, along with Mr. Roberts' recent string of letters regarding the 14th Amendment and US citizenship, effectively eliminates his opinions from serious consideration in any further intellectual discussion on the subject of immigration, law or the US Constitution, three things about which he seems very opinionated, but seems to know little about. In arguing these subjects, perhaps it is better to just know when to fold, rather than embarrassing oneself with nonsensical opinion that has no basis in fact or law. Thanks to Roger Algase for convincingly driving the final point home and concluding the "debate" over citizenship issues viz-a-vis the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Editor:
I have not receipt the Immigration daily since January 14th check it out what could be the problem.

M. Maha

Editor's note: We checked our records and were unable to locate your email address in the Immigration Daily listserv. However, we have added your email address and you should begin receiving Immigration Daily. If you continue to have issues with delivery, please contact us at webmaster@ilw.com.

Dear Editor:
Born in the US in 1950, I have long been a citizen. My wife is Chinese. I worked hard and spent decent sums of money to get her here in America. There are just as many struggling poor in China as there are in Mexico, Central and South America.
To favor one group of poor over the others is simply bigotry. Our immigration system needs improvement. I agree with this.
However, those individuals that felt they couldn't wait for the legal immigration policy and system to grant them a Visa are trespassers, not immigrants. Their stay here has made it more difficult for the poor from countries like China to immigrate, yet your editorials do not reflect this at all. I have been reading your editorials for a long time, waiting to see if you have any compassion for the asain poor. I don't see it at all.

Frank Rauscher
Las Vegas, NV

Dear Editor:
Since when did illegal aliens become law abiding residents? They have broken our laws, pushed to the head of the line and expect our acceptance and indulgence. ID and they are looking for benefits? Please. (see 02/03/09 ID comment).

Margaret Adelsberger

Dear Editor:
I have to say I have never read anything as blatantly pro-illegals, the millions that keep swarming the borders of our country as ID's recent comment (02/03/09 ID comment). They have broken a law by not having permission to come to this country, and now we have to give them rewards for breaking our immigration laws? Years ago, Americans may have been racist as to the color of one's skin, but we seem to have moved well beyond that point. Most Americans do not care what the color of skin is these days, but they worry about what illegals are doing to their chances for a job to feed the family.
While Americans are worried about the future, do you really expect this population to give cookies to illegals for slithering into this country?
And may I point out that there has been no real definition of the 14th Amendment whether these so-called "anchor babies" are actually citizens when the parents are illegal. Getting shoved across the border as you are about to give birth should not count as the conception of the child was on foreign soil.
Citing racism on behalf of criminals (whether committing misdemeanors or felonies) is an extremely racist thing to do.

Kurat

Dear Editor:
Most persons who express negative feelings and/or attitudes toward persons who are present in the United States without having being duly, properly, legally inspected then admitted by competent authority, or persons who having been duly, properly, legally inspected then admitted, but who then violate the terms of that admission by "forgetting" to leave at the end of their allotted time of admission, or simply refuse to leave at that time are legally, properly referred to as illegal aliens (02/03/09 ID comment). Those folks described above are in no way the same as true prospective immigrants who are currently awaiting their turn to enter with properly issued immigrant visas, folks who are equally anxious to participate in the "American Dream" as those who decided to take the law into their own hands by ignoring our laws, then demanding to be "brought out of the shadows". To better describe those of us who detest the first group of folks (the illegal aliens) that you appear to continue to want to support in their efforts to demand amnesty for their willful, knowing violation of our normal immigration practices, please do not refer to us as "Anti-immigrationists". Such referral is not only disingenuous, it is downright silly and a boldfaced lie about my feelings, and the feelings of many others who detest the lawbreakers and line-jumpers who ID appears to support, towards immigration and immigrants. ID has a valuable role to play in this immigration debate, but you debase your purpose by being so eager to defend the indefensible, that is, illegal immigration.

J.E. Smith
Brunswick, GA

Dear Editor:
Yesterday's ID editorial Comment, "No Enforcement Without Benefits", did
not have much of an argument to begin with and then completely lost it
with phony, tired charges of "racism" (02/03/09 ID comment). Because entry policies deal with
different races does not equal racism, nor does the limitation of
numbers. And since when does Enforcement of our immigration policies
require a trade-off or increase in entry numbers? Does the enforcement
or placing of speed limits upon the highway imply a bigotry against
autos or those who drive and require more drivers or does this display
society's concern for order, safety and preservation? ID's "patiently
waiting in line" plea implies that at some point, anyone is entitled to
migrate. There is no God-given or Human Right to immigrate to US. That
we have had such in the past when we were a growing country is passe now
that we are an overcrowded one with recession and dwindling jobs for
citizens. ID's, "But we are Nation of immigrants" rings hollow, when our
Nation is like the Titanic taking on more water than it needs while
slowly slipping into the sea. "But you have always been a Cruise Line"
would be irrelevant. The water that had supported the ship, destroyed it
when not controlled. The "benefit" to enforcement is suppose to accrue
to citizens, not foreigners. Entry enforcement is not "racism in another
guise", but what is thinly hidden is the familiar greed of business for
cheap labor on the global plantation and special interest groups who
benefit from excessive entry while ignoring the rights, well-being and
concerns of citizens.

Jim Roberts

Dear Editor:
So now ID considers me a racists because I want to stop illegal immigration and support E-Verify? E-Verify is 99.6 % effective - maybe the approach would have been better suited if you stood up for E-Verify and those who did not clear legally in the US has the chance to correct the errors (02/03/09 ID comment).

Ruthie

An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to editor@ilw.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.